3 ms·

I'm going to just assume you're not being malicious. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/sparks-of-artificial-general-intelligence-early-exper

I'm going to just assume you're not being malicious. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/sparks-of-artificial-general-intelligence-early-experiments-with-gpt-4/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/sparks-... https://www.assemblyai.com/blog/emergent-abilities-of-large-language-models/ https://www.assemblyai.com/blog/emergent-abilities-of-large-... If you'd like you can define "emergent capabilities in an AGI sense".

nradov 4y ago
I am not being malicious. I do not accept those papers as being actual examples of emergent behavior in a true AGI sense. This is just another case of humans imagining that they see patterns in noise. In other words, they haven't rejected the null hypothesis. Junk science. (And just because the science is bad doesn't mean the underlying products aren't useful for solving practical problems and enhancing human productivity.) The blowhards who are calling for arbitrary restrictions on research are the ones being malicious.
- bigtex88 4y ago
  OK you're moving the goalposts and just flat-out saying that you know better than the actual researchers in the field. That's fine, and it's what I was assuming you were going to say, but I appreciate you being open about it.